[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#803542: trnascan-se_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Afif Elghraoui]

Hello,

على الأربعاء  3 شباط 2016 ‫23:40، كتب Andreas Tille:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:27:07PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
>>> there seems to be something wrong with this package.
>>> A DFSG package should not be in non-free.
>>>
>>
>> This is the package that you rejected last November because of the
>> non-free file dbmalloc.h [1]. The package has the +dfsg suffix because I
>> excluded the postscript Manual.ps which cannot be built from source.
>> It's my understanding that even non-free packages should meet the dfsg
>> as far as possible.
> 
> Sounds sensible.
>  
>> Would you prefer I put the Manual.ps back in so that there is no
>> repacked tarball? Otherwise, do you have a more appropriate alternative
>> to +dfsg for the repack suffix?
> 
> I do not think that the tarball name in itself should be a rejection
> reason.  I also use this suffix for repackaged tarballs.  Some people
> are using +ds but I'd consider this nitpicking.
>

According to uscan(1) [1], it does look like ds is more appropriate in
this case.


> BTW, did you possibly contact the copyright holders for choosing a
> free license?
>

I haven't. I'd have to do some investigative work to find a valid email
address, but I might as well do that now.

Thanks and regards
Afif

1. "Common suffixes might be +dfsg1 to indicate the removal of files
that are not DFSG-compliant or +ds1 for other reasons such as removal of
prebuilt files or large embedded code copies."

-- 
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name